I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

SCOTUS Poised To Take Next Step On the Road To Total Political Domination By The Wealthy?

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the case that opens the door to the final destruction of the campaign finance laws that place a limit on how much money an individual can contribute directly to a federal candidate or national political party.

Now that the infamous Citizens United case, decided in 2010, has removed limits on how much a corporation, union and individual can contribute to groups that are ‘unaffiliated’ with candidates and political parties—leading to the creation and domination of the Super PAC—the Court, by agreeing to hear yet another challenge to campaign finance laws, is poised to take the next step toward finishing off all campaign limits by freeing individuals to give candidates and their political parties unlimited sums of money.

As the law currently stands for calendar years 2013-14, individual donors are limited to giving contributions to candidates for federal offices up to a maximum of $123,200 during an election cycle (two years) with a limit of $2,600 to an individual candidate, $32,400 to a national political party, $10,000 to a state political party and $5,000 to any other political committee affiliated with a candidate or political party.

However, an Alabama political donor—joined by the Republican National Committee—believes that the limitation of $123,200 placed on an individual donor during an election cycle is ‘unconstitutionally low’ and wants the highest court in the land to remove the cap.

The case now set to come before the Supreme Court will challenge only the total contribution cap and does not go after the limits placed on money given to individual candidates and political parties. However, based on the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, it is widely anticipated that were the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiffs in this matter and end the limits on the total contribution amount, the Court will have telegraphed its intention to do away with limitations of any kind or nature—making it only a matter of time until limits on individual contributions to candidates and political parties are also tossed into the dustbin of history.

While ending the existing limitation would put political parties on an even keel with the Super PACs in the race for big money, it would also mean the latest evisceration of the campaign finance limits put in place during the 1970’s when Congress reacted to the growing influence of money in politics—money that placed wealthy, individual donors in a position of undue influence over the nation’s elected officials.

The case that will now be heard by SCOTUS was argued last year in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where a three judge panel ruled that the challenged campaign limit laws were, indeed, constitutional. In issuing the Circuit Court ruling, Judge Janice Rogers Brown noted that the Supreme Court had previously held that limiting an individual’s political contributions had only a marginal effect on that person’s freedom of speech and that it was within Congress’ authority to place such limits on individual contributions.

Judge Brown added, “Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern, we decline plaintiffs’ invitation to anticipate the Supreme Court’s agenda.”

The Supreme Court has now accepted that invitation, leading many experts to worry that the latest blow to campaign finance laws in about to descend.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

America – the best republic dirty money can buy? Once this passes drug cartel and organized crime won’t need banks to launder money. It will just go straight to the politicians in what will amount to a get out of jail free card. It already happens but will only get worse

One man-one vote has moved to one corporation-many votes and now we will probably see the final chapter of our democracy in the approval of one man-many votes.

A plutocracy administered by the American Aristocracy, that which the Republican leaders have sought for so long, will drive our nation into second-world status, a nation of the few very rich holding sway over all the rest.

Am I missing something or do unions and other organizations gather money and spend it the same way that “corporations” do, totally on what they feel? Is every union member a solid left-wing Democrat? Why can’t Corporations just claim they are pulling a company paid contribution of say 15 cents from every employee and therefore they are the same as the PACS?

There is a chance that the comment about Corporations having greater sway is because you think they will influence Republican votes. The same way that the “immigration” bill (aka the “Democrat vote bonanza”) will get a solid bunch of Democrat voters.

Citizens United provided equal rights in this regard to both corporations and unions alike. Could this be why right after its passing unions came under such heavy fire from the (R)ight?

Now I know I am a little naive when it comes to both corporate and union structure as I am involved with neither…but unless I’m mistaken, unions vote for their leadership…corporations do not. Thus it can be argued that unions represent thier members interests, corporations only represent the entities interests, not their workers.